As for calling the police ,if Smith had safe access to a phone ,I will say he could have called police and barricaded himself;but Smith definitely should have called police immediately after the break-in ,not the next day.And it is unclear if he actually asked for the police to be called or the neighbor called police on his own.Not reporting the death of a human is a crime in itself.And a strong indicator that Smith knew he had gone too far.
Do we not have laws that ,at least in theory, punish the robber more severely if the victim dies than if the victim was injured but survived ? Arguments about the reasonableness of these laws is another point.
Your view seems to be that if someone breaks into your home or steals your car or tries to rob you that you have the right,maybe even the duty, to kill that person.Fortunately or unfortunately,depending on one’s position, American law does not generally agree with summary execution of the criminal by the intended victim,only stopping the criminal.
Some states have harsher penalties for breaking into an occupied home, in the perhaps vain hope that burglars will at least only take goods not lives.
Out of curiosity ,do you favor execution for kids stealing candy bars from the convenience store?
At what point does theft become a death penalty offense? $1000 ? $100 ? $1 ?
Just as I reject the notion that police are innocent of any wrongs if they happen to shoot or run over an innocent third party in the course of attempting to apprehend a criminal suspect,and also reject the corollary that the suspect is responsible for every wrong that occurs in the entire sequence of events;I also reject the notion that just because a person was the original victim that he can then do no wrong in his or others’ defense.
Humans are supposed to use good judgment in all things.And when they do not there will be consequences.
Look,the main problem in this is Smith bragging about,and actually shooting each of the two unarmed burglars in the head after they were down.
I agree, and note there is no anger or inflammatory rhetoric in that statement.
The act itself goes beyond normal self-defense as most people think of it.
Ditto my last.
Cuteness and age of the dead really shouldn't matter legally but you know appearance,gender,race, and economics always are a part of reality even in,or especially in, criminal trials.
Agreed from several perspectives, not disputed from any.
At this point I would like to repost my original post on this thread:
"I don't like the way this guy ended these two repetitive criminals, but the only way I would give the state any power over him is if the two had gone to his house with only legitimate intent.
For a victim to have his life destroyed, a criminal has to get lucky just once for a second. The victim must be alert, on guard, and physically capable of defending himself 24/7, 365, for life.
Only dead criminals can't come back when you're asleep, sick or injured."
As for calling the police ,if Smith had safe access to a phone ,I will say he could have called police and barricaded himself;but Smith definitely should have called police immediately after the break-in ,not the next day.And it is unclear if he actually asked for the police to be called or the neighbor called police on his own.Not reporting the death of a human is a crime in itself.And a strong indicator that Smith knew he had gone too far.
This is a mix of assumption of facts and legal issues. I cannot ascertain the factual ability of Smith to call police during combat, so I must not assume.
Calling police later is a legal matter and as such is covered by the Constitution. If Smith believed he might be prosecuted, he has the Constitutional right to refuse to self incriminate. I agree that Smith was a poor advocate of his right to refuse to self incriminate.
I tried to get you to stumble onto this point by suggesting that you require the burglars to self incriminate by calling the police.
Do we not have laws that ,at least in theory, punish the robber more severely if the victim dies than if the victim was injured but survived ? Arguments about the reasonableness of these laws is another point.
We do, I know of three (two teenagers) who received a sentence of life in prison for binding, gagging, beating and murdering an acquaintance of mine in her home, her husband had gone grocery shopping for her as she didn't fell well. They beat her mercilessly because she had the temerity to be home, then shot her in the head to murder her.
I have additionally had other personal friends murdered during burglaries or home invasion robberies while being "protected" by "reasonable" law.
Your view seems to be that if someone breaks into your home or steals your car or tries to rob you that you have the right,maybe even the duty, to kill that person.
Now you're slipping, there are several charges in that sentence. I only give near absolute rights in a persons home, over invaders for criminal purpose. In public I endorse considerable more scrutiny, I refer you to my original post.
Fortunately or unfortunately,depending on one’s position, American law does not generally agree with summary execution of the criminal by the intended victim, only stopping the criminal.
And I occasionally speak with the historical perspective on the consequences of this policy.
Out of curiosity ,do you favor execution for kids stealing candy bars from the convenience store?
You're slipping, again (an inflammatory question), children should be educated to the true cost of theft and envy, and punished enough to remember easily.
At what point does theft become a death penalty offense? $1000 ? $100 ? $1 ?
Ditto this question, it's not the dollar amount it's when the theft and "reasonable" reaction to it render the civil productive society unsustainable because the criminal human nature to be endorsed and enabled.
The US will fall because the "reasonable" US population coddled criminals, endorsed envy and handed that power to the state.
Just as I reject the notion that police are innocent of any wrongs if they happen to shoot or run over an innocent third party in the course of attempting to apprehend a criminal suspect,and also reject the corollary that the suspect is responsible for every wrong that occurs in the entire sequence of events;I also reject the notion that just because a person was the original victim that he can then do no wrong in his or others’ defense.
That is a philosophy to which you are entitled, but the important point is absent. That is: to whom do you give the power to right THESE wrongs, the state, or the individual...
...If anyone.
Humans are supposed to use good judgment in all things. And when they do not there will be consequences.
Agreed, and the question that I ask myself is do I want to get Smith more than I care about making it easier for anyone, including those misbehaving police you mention, to break into MY HOME,....and yours.
Lastly, I enjoy good fictional literature but avoid it for debate points as I can make fiction support anything I want. Also, I usually don't initiate Scripture, but I will choose other parts than those proffered for obvious reasons.